Freyberg

I think that modern war title sounds very interesting, although Bagration very much more so. Finances permitting I'll buy them both.

Thanks, ForwardObserver, for posting those earlier statements from BFC. I hadn't known about the NATO-Russia modern title. The idea of playing a game shooting terrorists has never appealed, but that one sounds fascinating. Of course, the Eastern Front title is the one I'm awaiting most eagerly. It's probably the most interesting period both historically and - as they say - in terms of weapons, units and technology.

Ouch! That was brutal! Nice AAR btw

I find Stugs a lot more survivable than PzIVs, although you have to use them stealthily.

I'm finding this thread very interesting. Thanks

Fascinating, and a great test of the historical veracity of this superb game. Brilliant screen shots as always.

Thanks very much for this AAR, GaJ. I enjoyed it immensely and it was extremely informative both historically and in terms of game-play, and the commentary from both of you was excellent. Personally I thought you did well. I hope you do another one soon

I enjoyed this AAR very much. Thanks, Bill, for your excellent commentary and tactical tips, and your wonderful screenshots. I hope you do another one soon

Re one of the comments above: in fairness to Churchill, architect of the 'soft underbelly' policy, as well as his notorious optimism and adventurism, he probably also had in the back of his mind the desire to save Italy from Communism after the Axis were defeated, although he could hardly have come out openly and said that.

AI/QB tweak (from another thread). AI hotspots in QBs. The idea of having setup hotspots for the AI is a good one, and it works well for scenarios, where the designer categorises their force in the unit-picker and can define particular spots on the map as suitable for different elements of their force. It would be cool if a map could be set up such that setup hotspots could be defined, for use a QB, as appropriate for certain types of unit. E.g., you could define a location on the map as suitable for AT guns, MG nests, armour, entrenched infantry - that sort of thing. That would really help the AI to do a better setup.

The idea of having setup hotspots for the AI is a good one, and it works well for scenarios, where the designer categorises their force in the unit-picker and can define particular spots on the map as suitable for different elements of their force. It would be cool if a map could be set up such that setup hotspots could be defined, for use a QB, as appropriate for certain types of unit. E.g., you could define a location on the map as suitable for AT guns, MG nests, armour, entrenched infantry - that sort of thing. That would really help the AI to do a better setup.

Perhaps defending is just harder...

- I 'd love to see the inside of AFVs when they get a hit (or is that ghoulish) - AFVs that show damage - penetrations, turrets blown off etc

Easy formation commands - spread out, advance by bounds etc...

I think an attack with good odds to the attacker, but with a limited time-frame and a tight casualty limit to the attacker would be quite a realistic and challenging scenario.

Hi Bill, In fairness to players, I would contend that the unrealistic casualty rates within games - the 'die in place mentality' - is more the fault of attackers. Defenders in WWII would quite often hold their ground quite stubbornly if they could - not just because those positions were important, but because casualties are often even higher during retreat. Attackers are the ones who in real life would tend to be more cautious and casualty averse than CM players.

Hi Bill, I guess you play as a strategist, so the bitter end seems a bit academic, as someone who's watched too many cheesy war movies, I love a good last stand 'The fruit of victory is in the rout' ...?

Awww play to the bitter end! I love the last stages of a really good game

I'm not complaining He had a good 10 min to hop out of his set... Just noting. I never thought to dismount and remount, that would have been a good idea.

I had an amusing situation in a recent game. A Stug without damage was down to 2 crew members, gunner and driver. The gun and MG both showed as undamaged, but the gunner wouldn't reload the gun, nor would he deign to use the MG. So the vehicle, although undamaged, couldn't fight (it was only up against infantry by this stage). In fact it seemed like there was one shell still in the breech, because I had the option of 'fire smoke' still available, but he wouldn't even pull the trigger on that one. Was he just stubbornly working-to-rule (perhaps he had an English ancestor) or is this is a minor bug?

I think that's an excellent idea. I like QBs, but I sometimes get tired of the unrealistic forces some players choose. I never play against the AI, so AI programming is unnecessary for me. Also, games that play well for a human opponent tend to be simpler than those against the AI. H2H games work best with a good map, realistic mission and forces, maybe a few reinforcements, but to keep as much as possible in the players' hands.

Waiting expectantly for the next installment

I take it the blocks of jelly-like stuff in the video are made of that forensic stuff that's supposed to mimic human flesh? Chilling if so...

Fascinating, especially that video